9 Jun
2009
9 Jun
'09
1:07 p.m.
STL isn't rapidly changed.
That may be the understatement of the year :)
People will expect that a monotonic::foo<..> is like a foo<..>, and they will accept that it requires a storage argument. But they will find it harder to accept that it requires retooling from a type-argument level of the allocator.
Why incur the overhead of expectation, when foo<T, monotonic::allocator<T>> gives you exactly what you want? Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com